Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!randvax!segue!jim
From: jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: asserts and unexpected returns (was: Re: Assert)
Message-ID: <4643@segue.segue.com>
Date: 13 Nov 90 22:32:08 GMT
References: <18647@rpp386.cactus.org> <4057@awdprime.UUCP> <18658@rpp386.cactus.org> <4093@awdprime.UUCP> <18662@rpp386.cactus.org> <4157@awdprime.UUCP> <18717@rpp386.cactus.org>
Reply-To: jim@segue.segue.com (Jim Balter)
Organization: Segue Software, Inc. - Santa Monica, CA. +1-213-453-2161
Lines: 18

In article <18717@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>[...]  you can't seem to accept that on some
>system assert() and abort() return to their invoker, [...]

No one has claimed that assert cannot be made to return on some systems,
yet this is at least the third time that you have responded to some *other*
point as though that claim were being made.  Can you say *strawman*?
Since I previously explicitly pointed this out and yet you ignored it (you
did respond to other parts of my posting, so you did receive it), the only
explanation I can see is bad faith.  While there is plenty of room in the
information groups for disagreement, there is none for bad faith.

>will you give up?  you can't seem to accept that on some
>system assert() and abort() return to their invoker, and now
>you go claiming namei() is a common kernel service.  please,
>quit while you are just slightly behind.

This isn't a contest, John.